I'm ultimately against this feature for the same reason you appear to be in favor of it. Not-as-competent strangers make posts to, and although I expect it rarely happens, people need to be able to correct them.

That's possible, but it would be better to correct errors where they are rather than having that information spread out all over. I guess it's a matter of how much you consider your post part of a collective or just yours.

Admittedly banning factual inaccuracies in the CoC would solve my issue much better.

it's a matter of how much you consider your post part of a collective or just yours

I consider my post being 100% mine, having nothing to do with any collaborative work. When I need collaborative work, I go ask for the collaboration before writing and put the name of the collaborators alongside in the preface.

I consider my post being 100% mine, having nothing to do with any collaborative work.

I don't mean it's collaborative work, I mean it's part of a collection with some overarching qualities.
Technically this is the case because dev.to has a CoC, making that the overarching quality. Not a very good one but it exists.

I am not sure I follow how censorship is connected to my proposal

It's a potential solution to a problem I believe might arise from disabling comments.

In my whole life (including but not limited to my professional career,) it always has been happening: people constantly come up with their points of view on everything. I believe that is sitting deeply inside human nature :)

But I never saw a wrong idea that was successfully shut down by censorship. Exactly contrariwise, censoring whatever out instead of just letting it be forgotten feeds the wrong, gives it the power and strength.

That said I do not believe in CoC at all (especially when it’s being executed by biased and undoubtedly incompetent people—the latter is not insulting, rather it is obvious: people cannot be competent in anything, check StackOverflow, mods there do supervise the narrowed set of topics they initially belong to as professionals.)

What I do believe in, is the opinion exchange, in the form of posts, not comments. That is necessary to narrow down the audience; leaving stupid comments under well-received posts is a clickbait, sorta.)

There's a big difference between censorship as you describe it and deleting/editing information that is provably, factually incorrect.

For instance, saying concurrency is the same as interleaved execution is factually wrong and needs to be corrected. That is not a matter of censoring ideas but correcting mistakes. In the later case you do not care if the original content is still visible, so long as it comes with a warning label of sorts.

Are there people all around who claim that? They should be sentenced to three months of interleaved pair programming then!

I see what you are saying, but I do still value the ability to speak freely the most, even if all being proclaimed is a misconception and fallacy. Nobody learns conceptual things from blog posts made by strangers. Time will put everything in their places and the wrong stuff will be inevitably forgotten.